A WORKED REVENUE DECISION
A battle pass—or a better bundle?
An illustrative scenario. No client data or reported results.
01 / Make the call
Revenue is flat. What would you build next?
Imagine a live puzzle game. Acquisition and retained-player activity are stable, but purchases have flattened. The shop mostly sells currency. Interviews suggest players want help preparing for the next chapter. The team can build one focused experiment; recurring seasonal-content capacity is unproven.
Choose a route to reveal my reasoning. This is a fictional teaching scenario, not client work or a forecast.
Build a battle pass
A credible option—with an ongoing obligation.
A pass could serve committed players who want a longer reward path. I would first need evidence that players can complete it at their actual play frequency, that its rewards are wanted, and that the team can fund and deliver future seasons.
Given the stated capacity constraint, I would not make the pass the first build. Strong reward demand and a proven content pipeline would change that recommendation.
Test a focused bundle
My starting choice for these facts.
A chapter-preparation bundle addresses an observed need with a bounded build. I would test a clear offer in a relevant moment and measure total net revenue across the shop—not just sales of the new bundle.
If the bundle merely replaces existing purchases, or the player need does not survive closer research, I would revise or stop. “Smaller” is useful only when the test answers the commercial question.
Fix retention before adding an offer
Right if the growth problem starts earlier.
If comparable player cohorts were leaving faster, I would investigate where the product stops delivering value before increasing purchase pressure. In this scenario retained activity is stable, so I would inspect segments while testing the offer.
A decline in relevant cohorts, progression frustration or harm from purchase prompts would move retention work ahead of this experiment.
02 / The options comparison
Make the tradeoffs visible.
Illustrative excerpt from the recommendation I would share with a product team.
Swipe the comparison sideways to see both options.
| Decision | Focused bundle | Seasonal battle pass |
|---|---|---|
| Player job | Prepare for the next chapter with useful items now. | Make regular play feel like progress toward wanted rewards. |
| Work required | Offer contents, eligibility, shop flow, fulfillment and experiment tracking. | Reward track, progression tuning, entitlement rules and a repeatable seasonal pipeline. |
| Commercial risk | Moves spending from existing packs without increasing total value. | Adds production cost or an obligation players cannot finish. |
| Evidence that earns the build | Observed chapter-preparation need and a feasible test. | Repeat-play behavior, reward demand and funded delivery capacity. |
| What changes my mind | No incremental shop revenue, weak need or harmful player effects. | A strong reward proposition and sustainable economics can make the pass the better choice. |
03 / The annotated offer flow
From recommendation to a screen your team can build.
This deliberately simple wireframe specifies the buying moment, proposition and delivery behavior. The $5.99 price and contents are illustrative assumptions to validate.
Your next chapter is ready.
1. Make it optional. Show after a completed chapter, never as a blocker after failure. Keep the normal shop and free progression available.
3 boosters
500 coins
One purchase; items added immediately.
2. Make the exchange explicit. Specify useful contents, localized final price and eligibility. No invented crossed-out price or artificial countdown.
3 boosters + 500 coins added to your inventory.
3. Close the loop. Confirm only after verified fulfillment. Handle cancellation, pending payment and retries without duplicate grants or charges.
These are non-interactive wireframes. A production handoff would also define empty/error states, platform checkout, accessibility, eligibility edge cases and the event schema.
04 / The test brief
Define what would count as progress.
Decision owner: Product lead. Question: Does the chapter-prep offer create incremental revenue without damaging the player experience?
- Hypothesis
- A relevant, clearly described bundle increases net revenue per eligible player across the whole shop. This tests the combined offer and context; it does not isolate a price effect.
- Population and assignment
- Eligible returning players who completed the chapter before assignment. Randomize persistently by player, 50/50, with platform and prior-purchase segments checked for balance. Exclude staff/test accounts; confirm assignment and exposure logging before launch.
- Control and treatment
- Control keeps the current shop. Treatment keeps the shop and adds the one-time optional offer above. Hold other promotions stable or document unavoidable overlap.
- Primary measure
- Total net shop revenue per assigned eligible player over a pre-specified 28-day observation window, including zero-purchase players. Account for refunds and platform fees consistently. Check displacement of existing purchases.
- Guardrails
- Retained activity, progression, refunds, failed fulfillment and support contacts. Define acceptable harm thresholds before launch and monitor serious issues immediately.
- Sample size and duration
- Use baseline revenue variance and the smallest commercially worthwhile effect to plan sample size and enrollment. Then complete the observation window. Twenty-eight days is an illustrative measurement window, not a guarantee of sufficient evidence.
- Decision rule
- Expand only when the effect is credible, commercially worthwhile after costs, and guardrails hold. Revise if the offer attracts interest but fails at value or delivery. Stop if it harms players or merely substitutes existing spend. An inconclusive result is not a win.
05 / Change the evidence
What would change my recommendation?
The team proves it can sustain a season
I would reopen the pass option with a reward-production budget, player-frequency distribution and a credible reward proposition. The next artifact would be a season plan: content owners, dependencies, completion pacing and a contribution model.
Returning players are leaving earlier
I would move retention diagnosis ahead of the offer: examine comparable cohorts, progression friction and the moments players stop getting value. A busier event calendar is not automatically the answer.
Bundle sales rise, but total shop revenue stays flat
I would look for cannibalization by prior-purchase segment and over the full observation window. If the offer only relocates spending, I would not call the launch a revenue win.
For a live-ops calendar: give each event a player purpose, production owner, dependency, measurement window and stop/repeat decision. The same reasoning helps decide whether a recurring pass deserves a place in the calendar.
What is the decision in your product?
I’m Jordan Blackman. I work directly with your team on the recommendation, the product design and the test brief. Your team implements; support through the test can be scoped with me.